Subject: [storm] Publication requested for RDDP registries draft

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:18:50 -0500

I just submitted the request to publish the RDDP registries draft as a Proposed Standard RFC.
Here's the PROTO writeup:

PROTO writeup: 
                         IANA Registries for the RDDP
                   (Remote Direct Data Placement) Protocols
                   draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-00.txt

Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (STORM WG Co-Chair)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this 
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

David L. Black ([email-masked]) is the Document Shepherd and a co-author
of the draft.  The Document Shepherd has reviewed this version of the document
and believes that it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have 
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 
        have been performed?

The document has had sufficient review from key WG members.  The document has
been prepared quickly, but has essentially no new technical content, as the
document creates and populates IANA registries based on values specified
in existing RFCs.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, 
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with 
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
        and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he 
        or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or 
        has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any 
        event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated 
        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those 
        concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
        this issue.

No.

  (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it 
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with 
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and 
        agree with it?   

The WG is largely silent, but the Document Shepherd believes that the
need for this document is clearly understood by the WG as a whole, and
no objections have been raised.

  (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
        discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in 
        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It 
        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is 
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are 
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Yes.

        Has the document 
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

N/A.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
        informative?

Yes.

        Are there normative references to documents that 
        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear 
        state? If such normative references exist, what is the 
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references 
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If 
        so, list these downward references to support the Area 
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

There are no issues with the normative references.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol 
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If 
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the 
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation 
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a 
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the 
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Almost the entire document is IANA Considerations text that creates
new registries.  The new contents and allocation procedure are defined,
and the registries have reasonable names.  The Expert Review process
is not used.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML 
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in 
        an automated checker?

N/A,

  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document 
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document 
        Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval 
        announcement contains the following sections: 

     Technical Summary

   The original RFCs that specified the RDDP protocol suite did not
   create IANA registries for RDDP error codes, operation codes and
   function codes.  Extensions to the RDDP protocols now require
   these registries to be created.  This memo creates the RDDP
   registries, populates them with values defined in the original
   RDDP RFCs, and provides guidance to IANA for future assignment
   of code points within these registries.

     Working Group Summary 

   Nothing exceptional to note.

     Document Quality 

   There are multiple implementations of the RDDP protocols to
   which these new registries apply.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Hemal Shah" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:48:39 -0800

David,

Sorry to respond late to this thread! I have several comments on the IANA registries for RDDP draft before it goes to the publication.

1.      The current draft does not include the RDMA Message Opcodes defined in the RDMA protocol extensions draft (Figure 3 of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-01.txt). I would like to see them included in the draft below.
2.      The RDMA protocol extensions draft defines several Atomic operations that are identified by Atomic operations codes (Figure 5 of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext-01.txt). I believe it will be good to add them to the IANA registries for RDDP draft.
3.      For any new opcodes in the future, do we need to update both relevant RFCs and registry specs? Or, registry spec only? If the opcode does not change any semantics in the RFC, then it would make sense to only update the registry spec.

Regards,

Hemal

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [storm] Publication requested for RDDP registries draft

PROTO writeup:

No.

No.

No.

Yes.

        Has the document

N/A.

Yes.

N/A,

     Technical Summary

     Working Group Summary

     Document Quality

Thanks,
--David

_______________________________________________
storm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:24:49 -0500

Hemal,

No change is needed to the RDDP registries draft, as all three of your items belong elsewhere:

1: The new RDMAP message opcodes will be added to the IANA registry by the RDMAP protocol
extensions draft when it is published as an RFC.
2: The RDMAP protocol extensions draft is the appropriate place to create a new
Atomic operations code IANA registry for RDMAP.
3: In the future, only the IANA registry is updated.  Any standards track RFC can add
      new registry entries and even create new registries.  The IANA registries are the
      definitive reference; the RDDP registries draft is needed only because the registries
      weren't created when the RDDP protocols were originally standardized.

In fact the registries in the RDDP registries draft are "incomplete" in another way, as they do not contain any entries from the MPA Peer Connect draft.  This is deliberate: after the RDDP registries RFC creates the registries, the MPA Peer Connect RFC will add entries to two of them.  In the future the RDMA protocol extensions RFC will add entries to another one of these registries, and it looks like you want to add text to create an atomic operation codes registry.

Items 1 and 2 are premature, as there is no final version of the RDMA protocol extensions draft.  IANA Considerations text will need to be added to the RDMA protocol extensions draft to address items 1 and 2.

Thanks,
--David

From: Hemal Shah [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 12:49 PM
To: Black, David; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Publication requested for RDDP registries draft

David,

Regards,

Hemal

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [storm] Publication requested for RDDP registries draft

PROTO writeup:

No.

No.

No.

Yes.

        Has the document

N/A.

Yes.

N/A,

     Technical Summary

     Working Group Summary

     Document Quality

Thanks,
--David

---

From: "Hemal Shah" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:51:11 -0800

David,

Thanks for the reply! Your points #1 and #2 suggest that we need to revise RDMA protocol extensions draft with IANA registry section. Please confirm.

After the IANA registries for RDDP draft goes to RFC, what is the estimated time for the actual creation of IANA registries for RDDP (that is accessible from IANA website)?

Hemal

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 2:25 PM
To: Hemal Shah; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Publication requested for RDDP registries draft

Hemal,

Thanks,
--David

David,

Regards,

Hemal

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [storm] Publication requested for RDDP registries draft

PROTO writeup:

No.

No.

No.

Yes.

        Has the document

N/A.

Yes.

N/A,

     Technical Summary

     Working Group Summary

     Document Quality

Thanks,
--David

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:43:01 -0500

Hemal,

> Thanks for the reply! Your points #1 and #2 suggest that we need to revise RDMA protocol extensions draft with IANA registry section. Please confirm.

That is correct.

> After the IANA registries for RDDP draft goes to RFC, what is the estimated time for the actual creation of IANA registries for RDDP (that is accessible from IANA website)?

The registries will appear almost immediately after RFC publication, but it is not necessary to wait until then to revise the RDMA Protocol Extensions draft.  See the IANA Considerations section of the MPA Peer Connect for an example of language that adds entries to a registry that will be created by another draft.

Thanks,
--David

From: Hemal Shah [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 7:51 PM
To: Black, David; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Publication requested for RDDP registries draft

David,

Hemal

Hemal,

Thanks,
--David

David,

Regards,

Hemal

[... remainder snipped ...]

---

From: "Hemal Shah" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:29:52 -0800

David,

Thanks for the reply! We will plan to revise RDMA protocol extension draft with IANA considerations section as you suggested below.

Hemal

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 5:43 PM
To: Hemal Shah; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Publication requested for RDDP registries draft

Hemal,

That is correct.

Thanks,
--David

David,

Hemal

Hemal,

Thanks,
--David

David,

Regards,

Hemal